This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I cannot fathom why this paragraph would be relevent to the political situation or, indeed, need be mentioned beyond the borders of Oregon. Apart from the subject of the paragraph it was worded in a particularly provocative way. This is the paragraph under question:

On May 12, two Portland, Oregon radio shock jocks played the audio portion of this video on their morning program several times, accompanied by music and their laughter, as if the video were a comedy sketch. They were fired that same day, and the station issued profuse apologies.

Note the almost personal upset the writer seems to take (it is, of course, an offensive thing to do) using tabloid phrases such as "as if the video were a comedy sketch", etc. -- OldakQuill 07:58, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

It's relevant because

1. It's received mention not only across the US, but also by a few news sources abroad.
2. It illustrates, on hand, the seriousness of Berg's death to most Americans, yet
3. It illustrates, on the other hand, that a segment of US individuals seem not to grasp the importance of just what is going on in Iraq right now.

As for whether the writer takes "personal upset" by using the words "as if the video were a comedy sketch", a wire story in The Guardian (which I understand is not exactly in support of the US invasion of Iraq) describes what the djs did as "cracking jokes about the grisly death".

While I live in Portland, I didn't hear the presentation, but I'm familiar with the 2 djs: their idea of humor is to adopt the persona potty-mouth half-wits, & to create material that that any 8-year old could create in less than half an hour. In a word, they are boring in a way that shock jocks like Howard Stern aren't -- whom I've heard, & I don't care for much, but compared to them Stern is clearly an intellectual. -- llywrch 18:05, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

The text appears neutral to me and has relevance in the reaction portion of the article. It shows U.S. reaction to any humor aimed at this issue. - Tεx τ urε 18:34, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

I see that the video links keep changing, as does the size of the video. Can someone just do a md5sum of the original (if they have it), and always link to a version that matches? Dori | Talk 15:15, May 15, 2004 (UTC)

Can we call the 8.2 MB WMV file: "The unedited video, including the beheading of Nick Berg" if some people thinks that it has been edited before?

To me, an unedited video clip has to be unedited camera footage. If the originally released file has been already edited by its author or whoever made it available, it probably can't be unedited.

Can we call it "the uncensored video," or whatever name that describes it best? -- Toytoy

I agree that the term "unedited" shouldn't be used because the original version appears to be edited. Mpiff 20:17, 15 May 2004 (UTC).

I removed this edit:

Throughout the war, the word "decapitation" has also been used quite frequently by the U.S. For example, the missile attacks targeted at Saddam Hussin was officially called " decapitation attacks." However these attacks did not actually decapitate Saddam Hussein.

In context, that is a non sequitar. "Decapitation attacks" are used in the sense of removing leaders (heads of war or government) in the hope of pacifying the "body" (followers_. They may or may not kill people and, if they do, the death is not necessarily or even especially by decapitation. Nick Berg was literally decapitated. ( User:Cecropia)

I agree, and would back you up. Also signed your post for you. Meelar 18:59, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

I removed the links to different conspiracy theories. I think they are detailed sufficiently in the article and the links are best kept in the links section. Al-Jazeera is explicitly pointed out due to their status as the reaction point for the arab communities. - Tεx τ urε 20:55, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

OK, so this is an attempt to dismiss any rational evaluation of the official account as conspiracy theories. Well, first of all that's POV and not a minor edit. There are two points that are incontrovertible:

• if you sever someone's main artery while they are still alive, there's going to be a lot of blood coming out. This is apparently not the case in the video.
• al-Zarqawi is well known for having a prosthetic leg. The person alleged to be al-Zarqawi in the video does not have a prosthetic leg. Hence it is not al-Zarqawi, and the CIA are telling porkies when they say it's him.

Agreed? 2+2=4, not 5 and I am not a conspiracy theorist for saying this. (of course there are conspiracy theories around, and they should be mentioned as such, but that doesn't mean that everything is just a conspiracy theory.) (just a caveat: I haven't and won't watch this video, so maybe it's not as obvious as this. If so, I'll take back what I'm saying here.)

al-Jazeera should not be named explicitly because they did not come up with this, they are not the authors. IMHO, they go out of their to make it clear that these criticisms of the official account originate from bloggers precisely because they don't want to be mixed with conspiracy theorists. We should therefore not name al-Jazeera in this context, and it's got nothing to do with them being "the reaction point for the arab communities" 139.184.30.19 21:42, 17 May 2004 (UTC) User:pir

You say it is POV. Isn't that the point of showing the response of the Arab communities? You also haven't addressed the need to include links in the main article that are sufficiently included in the "external links" section. - Tεx τ urε 22:49, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

I really don't understand what it has got to do with "Arab communities" - the vast majority of the conspiracy theorists are American. As far as I understand it, the point of this section is to point out oddities, inconsistencies and contradictions in the official account of what happened. The question of various people's reaction to the story is dealt with in the following section.

I think the best solution would be to seperate the "controversy" section into two: move the Western conspiracy theorists and the disbelief in the Arab world down to "reaction", and move the list (uncommented, no "conspiracy theory" label please) up to a renamed "possible [video] inconsistencies" section. Deal?

As for the links, it is just more rigorous to document where information is coming from so that people can follow it up and make up their own mind. Why is it a problem to have a link to the al-Jazeera article in the text as well as in the external links section? But I'm not bother about that, just remove one of them. 139.184.30.19 23:20, 17 May 2004 (UTC) User:pir

Al Jazeera needs to be in there because otherwise we have no primary published source for these conspiracy theories; I would much prefer to delete them entirely as they are all speculation intended to deflect suspicion to other parties; much as we had long-winded allegations about the thousands of Jews who weren't at work on 9/11; even that the hijackers couldn't have been Arabs "because Arabs aren't smart enough to carry 9/11 off." The only references I can find for these are in the Arab or extreme leftist press. I would bet that if I put in an allegation that was from The New York Post people would demand the citation, if they didn't just summarily remove it. -- Cecropia | Talk 23:07, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

But al-Jazeera is not the primary source. I agree that there has to be a link to the al-Jazeera article because it's a good summary of the points people have raised, but they should not be named explicitly as the way they are now.

I agree that the list is getting too long-winded, and it should be shortened somewhat. But: some of the points are absolutely valid and they must not be dismissed as conspiracy theories. They are not "just speculation". 139.184.30.19 23:27, 17 May 2004 (UTC) User:pir

But they are assembled and quoted by Al Jazeera. If we can't describe the source as Al Jazeera than we have to give the primary source. There is a big difference if a government spokesman, or a respected jurist, or a political analyst for a news organization, expounds a theory, or if it's "Joe Blow on ConspiracyBlogsRUs." We need this information to evaluate who has these theories. I can post my theory on a blog that the killer was Jacques Chirac (sorry GBWR--don't get upset) but if you print it here you better say who said it. -- Cecropia | Talk 23:34, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

So you are still trying to make out that these points are not valid... While it's more significant when a government spokesman says somthing, compared to Joe Blow, it is not necessarily more likely to be true. The made-up Iraqi WMD and the made-up al-Qaeda-Saddam link have made this abundantly clear even to the most uncritical.

One important criterion for deciding wether info belongs in Wikipedia is: does it make sense? If it makes sense, it should be included as reasonable, no matter who said it, even if it happens to be Joe Bloe.

Does it make sense to say that Berg must have been dead when the decapitation occurred? Yes, so include it - you don't need to have a government spokesperson with a PhD in anatomy to say it, you just work it out for yourself. Does it make sense to ask why Berg was wearing a U.S.-issue prison jumpsuit ? Yes, so include it. Does it make sense to read anything into the particular way the reader is flipping pages? I don't think so. Does it make sense to blame the one-legged al-Zarqawi for the beheading? No. It should still be included because it means the CIA are lying (hence the "CIA source speaking on the condition of anonymity"), and that's significant.

Let's seperate reasonable analysis from conspiracy theories. The reasonable stuff goes under "possible inconsistencies", the conspiracy stuff under "reaction". 139.184.30.19 00:16, 18 May 2004 (UTC) User:pir

For the purpose of neutrality the "inconsistencies" are not listed as conspiracy theories. However, the notion that the U.S. was involved in his death is indeed correctly included as a newly forming conspiracy theory. (It is a theory and it involves some kind of hidden conspiracy, hence: conspiracy theory.) - Tεx τ urε 00:28, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

Yes I agree. Do you think it's a conspiracy theory to point out that Berg must have been dead when you was decapitated? And do you think it's a conspiracy theory to point out that al-Zarqawi cannot have been the killer? 139.184.30.17 01:18, 18 May 2004 (UTC) User:pir

Are you asking me? I just explained that these are listed neutrally as possible inconsistencies. Personally I do think those are part of the conspiracy theories but in the article it is neutrally represented as inconsistencies. - Tεx τ urε 01:30, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

A more 'neutral' source could be this pravda link http://english.pravda.ru/mailbox/22/101/397/12790_Berg.html 213.84.9.252 10:09, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

It has been claimed (on local radio) that Nick Berg, in addition to his living sister, had a sister who married an Iraqi and who died under mysterious circumstances. I've seen no mention of this in written sources. Is this another "conspiracy" type factoid? - Nunh-huh 23:12, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

It was his father's sister who married the Iraqi; she's the one who's no longer living. Some confusion about that in some earlier revisions and reverts. MisfitToys 23:33, May 23, 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:"While the term conspiracy theory could refer to any theory positing the existence of a conspiracy (but as yet unproven), it is usually used by people as a disparaging rhetorical device to refer to ideas that, in their opinion, are:

• Unproven theories that are generally considered false
• Impossible to prove true, or to falsify
• Paranoid or baseless"

Shouldn't we create a distinction between:

• the controversial suspicious aspects of the decapitation video and other suspicious aspects of the official story which don't fall under the definition of conspiracy theories;
• Unproven conspiracy theories about who else could be behind this? 213.84.9.252 13:11, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

I agree. Quadell (talk) 14:34, May 21, 2004 (UTC)

I disagree. We will be unable to agree on what falls in which category. Personally, I feel it all falls under conspiracy theories. - Tεx τ urε 15:00, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

I disagree. Essentially agree with Texture. Looking for inconsistencies is part of the Conspiracy Theory process, barring more direct indication that it is faked. -- Cecropia | Talk 15:02, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

Here's a fact: when a living person is decapitated, copious blood flows from the neck wound. Fact: copious blood did not pour from Berg's neck wound. Safe to say: the video is intended to give the appearance that Berg was killed by decapitation, but careful observation belies this. This isn't a theory, so much as it's an observation. And it has nothing to do with a conspiracy. It doesn't belong with "conspiracy theories". (On the other hand, speculating that the U.S. may have turned Berg over to terrorists is a theory about a conspiracy.) But "conspiracy theory" isn't a catch-all term; it has a specific meaning.

Often people mistakenly use the term "conspiracy theory" to apply to any controversal explanation, but that's a misuse of the phrase, judging a theory rather than describing a theory. The theory that the Abu Ghraib abuses were condoned from the top is a conspiracy theory, since it's about a conspiracy. The well-established theory that al-Qaeda planned the 9/11 attacks is a conspiracy theory. The claim that Berg's attackers were pale-skinned doesn't explicitly theorize about a conspiracy.

We can use "conspiracy theory" as descriptive term, or we can stop using the term at all, but we shouldn't use it a judgement as to the validity of certain ideas. So any list of conspiracy theories should include all theories about conspiracies, whether controversial or not, and should not include anything else. Quadell (talk) 17:03, May 21, 2004 (UTC)

I vigorously support Quadell. Facts must not be be presnted as conspiracy theories - this is an extreme POV tactic. Wikipedia must not be an unquestioning platform for propaganda. But I will not bother you much now because I broke my right hand after my last comments on Monday, so typing is very slow now. pir 17:50, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

A leading surgical authority and a noted forensic death expert believe the video has been staged: Berg beheading: No way, say medical experts. So if al-Zarqawi (with a prostetic leg and presumably dead) is mentioned as the possible killer on the main page (talk about a baseless, impossible to prove true, conspiracy theory) surely this can too? 213.84.9.252 22:24, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

I removed the user:pir signatures form 213.84.9.252's edits, because they were not made by me. I made some edits under the IP 139.184.30.19 and similar IPs the other day because the computer I was using kept on logging me out, so I signed with my IP and a link to my user page as user:pir. I have no idea who 213.84.9.252 is or why she/he was signing with my login /n linking to my user page. I insist on my right to point ou these facts, and, while they amount to a curious inconsistency, I do not believe this to be a conspiracy ;) pir 17:50, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

I insist on an immediate investigation and senate hearings into the conspiracy to associate Pir with all references to Prions. Pir, are you or have you ever been a sub-atomic particle? - Tεx τ urε 18:06, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

Oops, sorry about that Pir. I didn't know how to sign comments so I copied your signature. My apologies for being an idiot and not changing the Username! It won't happen again. 213.84.9.252 21:04, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

No worries, that's what I thought probably happened. The easiest way to sign is to type 4 tildes (~~~~). pir 10:58, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

Why do we need a second video URL and I can't say I understand the text that was proposed with it at all. Anyone aware of some anti-semitic text nick was supposed to possess? Does this belong on the conspiracies page? - Tεx τ urε 12:14, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

I'm not doubting that it is possible Berg was killed first and then decapitated for "show and tell," but I'm surprised as the incautious statements made to the press by reputable medical doctors:

"I certainly would need to be convinced it [the decapitation video] was authentic," Dr John Simpson, executive director for surgical affairs at the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons, said from New Zealand. Echoing Dr Simpson's criticism, when this journalist asked forensic death expert Jon Nordby, PhD and fellow of the American Board of Medicolegal Death Investigators, whether he believed the Berg decapitation video had been "staged", Nordby replied: "Yes, I think that's the best explanation of it."

First of all, no doctor would (or could, at least in the U.S.) give any kind of diagnosis of cause of death without access to the patient. So they are speculating based on their video, which makes their opinions less "expert" and more like those of you and me, who see the videos and note similar issues. I'm especially surprised to see "forensic death expert Jon Norby" say that the video was "staged" as the "best" explanation. "Staged" is a loaded word. The way it was reported implies that it never happened. Better would have been to say that the video may have been "manipulated" to make it appear that Berg was alive at the time of the bedding.

Of course, someone has a pretty good idea of how he died--the people who autopsied his body (unless perhaps the head is missing). But if those doctors came out tomorrow and said "yes, the cause of death was directed related to the heading" how many people who say they were lying.

For my own part, it seems more likely to me than not that the killers killed him first and cut later, but I'm trying to point out, with all the conspiracy theories going around, that everybody has their own preconceptions and believes the "experts" they want to believe. -- Cecropia | Talk 15:00, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

I don't think I get you point, Cecropia. If someone takes a dead body, films as he cuts off the head, then makes it look like the person was still alive during the decapitation - how is that not "staged"?? It does not imply that the killing or the decapitation did not happen.

The video is "staged" no matter what, in that it was put together for propoganda purposes, however, the term "staged" implies that the events seen did not really happen. So it puts into doubt that (1) the reality of Berg's death, because, if a dummy was beheaded (as some are guessing) we might guess he's still alive.

Also you do not need to be an "expert" to state with some degree of certainty that it's impossible to decapitate a person alive without considerable release of blood. All you need to know are basic things like, as long as a person is alive their heart beats, most of the blood supply goes directly from the heart to the brain, when you ncut off someone's head you'll sever the main artery, a normal person has several litres (about 5l I think) of blood that are pumped through the body in a minute or so, your heart beat is about once a second or something, etc. No need for a PhD in anatomy and forensic science, just use you brain. Incidentally that's exactly what I was saying on 17. when you and texture insisted on labelling this "conspiracy theory" (still don't understand where the conspiracy is, or the theory, or how "perceptions" come into it, it's just obervation plus rational conclusion, any 5 year old can figure it out.) pir 16:35, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

Did you read my post? That's what I said. The "experts" were giving credence to a theory on which they had not much more expertise than you and me, given they had no access to the body. -- Cecropia | Talk 18:26, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

No, no, no, it's not a theory ("an idea formed by speculation") that they are giving credence to - it is an inference based on verifiable and reproducible observations. And it's because anybody with a brain and a minimum of honesty can make this inference that the "expert opinion" doesn't count for more than your or mine. Which is also why you were wrong on 17. to insist that we must refer to the al-Jazeera article because "There is a big difference if a government spokesman, or a respected jurist, or a political analyst for a news organization, expounds a theory, or if it's "Joe Blow on ConspiracyBlogsRUs." We need this information to evaluate who has these theories. " It simply never was a theory to say that Nick Berg was dead when the decapitation occurred. Sorry if I'm being pedantic, but this is important. - pir 19:06, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

Maybe the name of Nick Berg conspiracy theories should be changed. I just created the name for lack of anything better. Kingturtle 21:58, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

I think that's a very good idea since not everything on that page fits the title. How about "Alleged Berg murder inconsistencies" ? pir 22:47, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

Anything on Voz de Aztlan is suspect. Besides being rabidly anti-Semitic and a hispanic supremacist group, they're well-known to photoshop, often poorly, many of the images they feature in their articles. They've removed a bunch of them after threats of lawsuits, but a few still remain [1]. -- Delirium 20:28, May 22, 2004 (UTC)

This was posted by 24.118.180.190 in the 20:50, 22 May 2004 revision:

THIS MESSAGE IS FOR RICKK:

What I said and what you deleted are not, as you claim, political propanganda and name-calling. They are facts. Which do you dispute?

(1) Nick Berg was not decapitated. Nick Berg had his head sawed off with a knife. Decapitation connotes the French execution method c. 1790, a much less painless way to die than the horror that Nick Berg suffered.

(2) Nick Berg's father is a very morally confused man. Anyone who blames this sort of savagery on the leader of a government that is a democracy and whose soldiers have fought and given up more lives to liberate other nations from the jack boot of dictatorships, is very morally confused.

(3) Muslims did not in general, condemn Nick Berg's murder. That is factually false. What they condemned was his mutilation (i.e. sawing off Berg's head) after he was ostensibly already dead.

I could go on... but this article is FAR from neutral in its very wording and tone. It sounds more like a AP or Reuters piece with all the entailing anti-American biases, than an entry fit for a real Encyclopedia, which this is not. If there is a "neutrality policy" this article as it was written clearly violates that policy.

Finally, sir, you are a morally confused if you believe that what I wrote was "propaganda."

I will never use this website again and I will recommend that others do not as well.

-Thomas K

I don't think I need to say antyhing in response to this diatribe. Rick K 02:21, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,9544920%255E661,00.html says that "Mr Berg's family were told by US officials on Monday that a headless corpse found dumped in Baghdad on Saturday was their son."

These are the same "US officials" that told Nick Berg's family that he was in US custody, then told his family that he had not been in US custody, and a host of other lies and self-contradictions. "US officials" do not elaborate on how they were able to identify Nick Berg, given that he both was and was not in their custody at the same time. (Tea and no tea, anyone?) What exactly is the problem with citing the complete and utter lack of positive identification of a headless corpse? Energybone 16:49, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

http://www.jihadunspun.com/intheatre_internal.php?article=821&list=/home.php& says "It began: "Here you are, FReepers. Here is the enemy” and listed "Michael S. Berg, Teacher, Prometheus Methods Tower Service, Inc." Just seven days after "Michael Berg" and "Prometheus Methods Tower Service" had come up on that Iraq war 'enemies' list, his son Nick Berg returned to Iraq under the business name of Prometheus Methods Tower Service."

This would tend to indicate that Prometheus Methods Tower Services was owned by Michael Berg. Although how Free Republic got wind of this is anybody's guess, since this "company" is NOT REGISTERED IN ANY STATE IN THE CONTINENTAL US, nor have they seemed to have engaged in any ADVERTISING or any ACTUAL WORK. Only one tiny local radio station claims that they intended to hire Nick Berg when he got back from Iraq to build a transmitter tower on SWAMPLAND.

Let's keep the conspiracy theories on the conspiracy article page and keep the fictionalizing out of Wikipedia. Discuss any facts that you don't believe here in the talk page before disputing them in the article. - Tεx τ urε 18:24, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

Are you saying that five men secretly videotaping a murder is NOT a conspiracy theory? What's your basis for that conclusion, if you don't mind me asking? Are you basing it on anything remotely connected to reality or are your paranoiac fantasies the basis for this claim? Energybone 18:28, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

Nick Berg is not a mossad spy and such unfounded theories belong on the conspiracy theories page. Do not vandalize this article without discussion it in the talk page. - Tεx τ urε 15:18, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

Again, let's keep the conspiracy theories on the conspiracies article page. - Tεx τ urε 13:41, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

If anyone has time, consider incorporating this news item into this article. I won't have to do so until late tonight. So, be my guest. :) Kingturtle 20:35, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

Moore says he will not release the Berg interview except to the family, arguing that it was not used in the film Farenheit 9/11. Maybe he's trying to stir up interest, or maybe he thinks "news management" is all right for political film directors, but not the government. -- Cecropia | Talk 22:53, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

hmmmmm, Moore not releasing video material to stir up interest.... that's a bit of conspiracy theory, Cecropia! ;) I tend to agree with you though. pir 19:18, 29 May 2004 (UTC)

Or alternatively, he's doing a courtesy to the family. Meelar 22:57, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

I'm not talking about the release to the family, I'm talking about his office's statement that "We are not releasing it to the media. It is not in the film. We are dealing privately with the family[...]" If such a video existed in most any other hands, it would be demanded to be released, or else it would be called a cover-up. -- Cecropia | Talk 23:11, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

From what I understand, he is showing the family the tape and asking them if it would be okay for him to release it. Moore wants to release it. If the family says no, then maybe there will be calls of a cover-up. Kingturtle 23:17, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

The sister says she's "skeptical" but can't confirm/deny Moore sent the parents a copy 'cause they're on a getaway. [2] 142.177.18.242 22:46, 29 May 2004 (UTC) with bated breath until they get back

Given Moore's well-known position on Iraq and the Bush administration, wouldn't the fact that Berg gave him a 20 minute interview be at odds with the claim in 'Travels and Detention' that "Berg, unlike most of his family, was a supporter of the 2003 invasion of Iraq and of Bush administration policy."? I would assume he knew of Moore's work. Of course, if Berg really did support the war then that might explain Moore's reluctance to include his interview ;) 82.44.176.135 00:15, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

Recent interview with father (8/24/2004):

AMY GOODMAN: Michael Moore interviewed Nick at a business conference here about investment in Iraq, is that right?

MICHAEL BERG: Yes, it is.

AMY GOODMAN: And gave you the videotape?

MICHAEL BERG: Yes, he did, and he promised, and has kept his promise, not to give the tape to the media or to anyone else, and not to use it himself, which I imagine cost him not only in dollars but in fame or whatever. It would have been a big headline at the time if he had done that. It would have brought attention to his movie, which hadn’t yet come out at that point. So, I applaud Michael Moore as a fellow human being for standing up and doing the right thing and being a man of his word.

AMY GOODMAN: And what does Nick say in that interview that he did?

MICHAEL BERG: Basically, he is being interviewed by a staff member of Michael Moore’s staff and she is asking him, basically, Why are you going to Iraq? What do you hope to accomplish there? – details about how he was going to go about doing it, and that sort of thing.

-- GD 03:26, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The entire problem can be solved by removing such photos, Videos, grisley & descriptive stories about this mans death, for gods sake, has he & his family not suffered enough?

It is NOT the presidents fault, maybe it is said to be in reaction of the US soldiers abusing the Iraqi prisoners, then by god, punish them to the full extent of Iraqi & U.S. law, Just because we are Americans, does not give us the right to abuse ANYONE in any manner, This action by our people should NOT be tolerated, but then again, the actions of Nick's murderers should not be tolerated either.

Do not blame the President, he did not force Nick to go to Iraq. Those of you whom do not stand behind the President in his decisions concerning this matter, do not deserve the right to claim American Citizenship.

How would ANY of you react if it were your relatives beheading that was posted on web sites and / or on TV ? (I rest my case.)

I was extremely angered, sickened & sad, a person that claimed to be my friend tricked me into seeing the video of Nick's beheading, that person was extremely sorry he did so after wards, you have to be a VERY sick individual to want to view this sort of media.

May god tender mercy in dealing with those of you whom post such.

Michael
(Prior Service in)
Texas Army National Guard
3rd/163rd Armored Cavalry

Michael, to answer your question "How would ANY of you react if it were your relatives beheading that was posted on web sites and / or on TV?", the intent of the project is to create a reliable encyclopedia that has breadth and depth. Wikipedia is not here to take sides, to mince words, or to avoid facts. We do not pussyfoot around. Still, we try to take great care in balancing articles and in protecting readers from encountering vile or offensive materials. That is why this article does not show the images, but instead links to the images.

This article does not blame president Bush. Nor does this article opine about what should happen to the killers. Wikipedia avoids stating such opinions in articles.

As for why Nick Berg was in Iraq, we do not yet know the full story.

As for claiming American citizenship, what is supposed to set the U.S. aside from most nations is that people in the U.S. have the right to openly condemn their government and their leaders. Nowhere is it written that those who do not stand behind a president cannot claim U.S. citizenship. Moreover, it *is* written that U.S. citizens are allowed to protest against their leaders and their government. Sincerely, Kingturtle 23:02, 29 May 2004 (UTC)

Surely the man's family has suffered, but that does not mean that information about his death should be removed from an encyclopedia. That would be like saying that there should be no discussion of the John F. Kennedy assassination because it might be painful to the Kennedy family. These are important historical events and they should be properly chronicled.

I agree with most of your comments about the President and Abu Ghraib, but I don't think it's fair to say, "Those of you whom do not stand behind the President in his decisions concerning this matter, do not deserve the right to claim American Citizenship." Is freedom of speech and the ability to question and criticize leaders not the basis of American Citizenship?

I'm sorry you were tricked into seeing the video, but I don't think this kind of an emotional response is very useful.

Sincerely,

Acegikmo1 23:06, 29 May 2004 (UTC)

Also, why did you delete a large section of this talk page?

Acegikmo1 00:04, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

Ugh. I for one am thankful for those willing to swallow their disgust and do the job the mainstream media have abdicated. And as for "Those of you whom do not stand behind the President in his decisions concerning this matter, do not deserve the right to claim American Citizenship" all I say is "Thank God I'm Canadian and thank God Harper wasn't in charge." Hume, Chester, Nova Scotia 142.177.18.242 23:44, 29 May 2004 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? The problem goes away when you remove the photos and videos?? That is the craziest thing I have ever heard. Out of sight does not take it out of mind!

I think you are very naive to think that the government does not do things that we do not know about. Horrible things at that. I bet my life on the fact that some of those "sick individuals" are running our country.

How do you know that it is not the Presidents fault Nick was killed? I doubt that he said directly "kill him" but there is no solid proof either way, but there sure is alot stacked on the Conspiracy/Controversy side. How do you know that our government did not do this to take the heat away from the ignorant decisions to act like terrorists and abuse human beings?

I am an American and I have every right to be one. That's what it's all about, freedom. Freedom of speech, freedom to think what I want. I might not agree with how the government runs this country but that does not make me any less of an American. I was born here and that is what I am whether you like it or not!

Your friend tricked you into watching the video? Did you watch the whole thing? I bet you did. That was your choice. If you are so outraged what are you doing reading controversy??

Of course how sad for the Berg Family. I am sure that much more of their suffering is due to the fact that they don't know what happened. I am also willing to bet that it is sites like this that they are using to get answers. It's all about choice.

I don't need mercy from God. Guess what God loves us all no matter what we do AND everything happens for a reason.

Wow, when searching for Nick Berg, this page is the second site...expect a lot more emotional (irrelevant) posts like the above. Wyllium 22:52, 29 May 2004 (UTC)

Yes, this article is about Nick Berg being dead, which is his only claim to fame. Removing that from the head, especially with "Nick Berg is" (rather than "was") is a backdoor way to attempt to push Energybone's POV that he is really alive. -- Cecropia | Talk 04:56, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

Apparently you haven't heard that Nick Berg is the inventor of Bovl Blocks. I'd say since he did that BEFORE this video was released, that's the meat and potatoes. Quit trying to put the desert before the entree. What's the matter with you? Enough of the Gestapo crap already. I realize you are vested in perpetrating this hoax, but please, spare the rest of us who aren't sheep. Energybone 05:09, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

Er....considering that there are less that 5 URLs retrieved in Yahoo or in Google after doing a "Bovl Blocks" search, and that none of those were written before his alleged beheading took place, one can easily support the claim that Berg is famous for his alleged beheading, and not for the Bovl Blocks (an "invention" that was still and is still a prototype.) Kingturtle 11:35, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

POV? You want to talk about POV? Your repeated insistence that he is dead is POV, and it's infested that article like a cancer. Don't talk to me about POV, you have not got a beheaded leg to stand on, I'm afraid. Energybone 05:11, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

Energybone, no matter what your opinion, you can be courteous. Or you can be banned. Meelar 05:14, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

This Nick Berg article is an absolute rubbish heap. It really needs to be razed and re-written from scratch, but we'll see what happens from incrementalism. Already the forces of fancy are on the move to keep the facts out of the front. Energybone 05:17, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

Am I part of these "forces of fancy"?

Acegikmo1 06:28, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

The section 'Claimed Link to Zacarias Moussaoui' says quite boldly that Berg encountered Moussaoui on a bus and allowed him to use his laptop. This does not reflect what was said in the linked article. In fact, it says that the encounter was with *an acquaintance* of Moussaoui. I think it is important to make the distinction clear. 82.44.176.135 00:04, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

wtf is wrong with the top photo? it messes up the whole article. blankfaze | •­• 03:40, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• fixed. i guess it was some kind of bug with the thumbnail code. so i just made it not a thumbnail. blankfaze | •­• 03:43, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • OH! nevermind! I've discovered that the whole thing was just a due to a conflict with my User CSS. So someone can but it back in thumbnail if they want. blankfaze | •­•

What's the point of linking (clickable or not) to a "shock site that tricks people into viewing Nick Berg's execution"? -- Conti| ✉ 16:56, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)

The point is to show that people have incorporated the Nick Berg execution video into a website designed to offend people. WhisperToMe 19:14, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

And why exactly should this be mentioned, or even linked? -- Conti| ✉ 20:08, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)

I just told you. The shock site link should tell you why they are so important. Oh, and it also serves as a warning on not to go to that site. WhisperToMe 22:22, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Without this warning I wouldn't knew that the site existed at all.. Wikipedia is not a place to warn people against shock sites, therefore I still think we shouldn't mention that here. I'd like to hear other opinions on this. -- Conti| ✉ 22:36, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)

I think the link should be removed, too -- wikipedia is not supposed to be a collection of links. There are already three links to the execution and several photographs - is more really required? If it is important to mention that sites have incoporated the video in deliberate attempts to offend, then write so in the body of the article. The shock site already has the link, so there's no need to duplicate it here. -- Tlotoxl 16:23, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

IMO, the link is too trivial; we're better without it. — Matt 16:35, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This whole discussion is pointless. No matter how over and over people might talk about this, THIS IS SUPPOSED TO BE AN ENCYCLOPEDIA - NOT A FREAK SHOW! You want to see gore? Go to roten.com or something like that. This is not only revolting, but it is an insult to the guy's family as well. And I wouldn't like to participate on a project/community where people past such links, no matter the rethoric or epistemy used for such.

Remove the links. If you want to find such things, use a peer-to-peer network client such as Kazaa or Shareza. (anon postings)

NO! Look up. We had this discussion and we say keep. WhisperToMe 22:44, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I reverted User:168.209.97.34 again, simply because he not only reverted my edits, but also those made by another user after I did the revert. The site which the anon links to (now a redirect to http://survivalist.co.za/video/) has changed every time I've reverted him. The first time, it contained not only a link to the Nick Berg video, but also to another decapitation video. My opinion was that there is no need to not softlink directly to the video, so I reverted him. The second time I got a 404, so I reverted again. Then it contained links to even more decapitation videos and now there is a warning above these links, stating "WARNING: GRAPHIC VIDEOS - DO NOT CLICK IF YOU ARE UNDER 18". I still see no reason to link to a page which has links to pretty much all of those videos. Furthermore, this article already has a strong warning about the video, it's not needed to warn twice. The "age restriction" will a) not stop anyone from clicking the video, and b) may not be correct in many countries anyways, so I see no reason to mention this as well. Everyone should know for himself if he wants to see the video or not. On a further notice, I went to http://survivalist.co.za/ just out of curiosity, and to my suprise I found a wikipedia mirror with a google ad on top. I don't have a clue about what happens there, but that led to my decision to remove the link from the article until this is being discussed here. -- Conti| ✉ 15:04, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)

-- I would have reverted that other edit also because all it did was link the words "orange" and "businessman". I think that's a bit overboard - we all know what orange and a businessman is. As of the link to the decapitation video, it is considered bad manners to link directly and bypass any warnings the website wants to offer their visitors. Sure it doesn't ensure that the person clicking the link is over 18, but it's arguably better than nothing Besides, why did you remove one and then then leave the other link as a "softlink"?

It was already discussed here how to link to the videos, the warning on this article should be enough. My main concern with this is that the page links (or linked, at the moment I get a "not found" message again) not only to the video in question, but also to other decapitation videos. If these are gone, and the site links only to the video we want to link to, it is okay for me. Also, the warning wasn't there until I reverted the article the third time.. -- Conti| ✉ 10:07, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)

Now it's "beheadingvideos.co.za" with the meta description "Watch Iraqi Terrorists Decapitate Innocent Civilians" ... am I really the only one who'd like to see such a link gone? There are other links that do not make a freak show out of this, we should use these links. Any comments?-- Conti| ✉ 11:17, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)

Even if it's an intentional shock site, a video link is a video link is a video link. Heck, this serious encyclopedia provides links to shock sites at the shock site article. WhisperToMe 15:52, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

WhisperToMe, a very careful and thoughtful contributer, recently added

At 00:05:20, the head is presented to the camera. It is then laid on Berg's dead body.

Are you sure? The videos I've watched don't show this. Are you perhaps confusing it with a different beheading? – Quadell ^{( talk) ( help)}[[]] 12:01, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)

Download the full Consumption Junction version. It's there. WhisperToMe 22:19, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

However, much of the Middle East itself still sees Muslim extremists taking hold. One Iraqi said, "The war in Iraq, he says, is one of liberation, not just of a country, but of Muslim lands, Muslim people, Islam itself. There is no room for negotiation with the enemy, no common ground. What he and his men offer is endless, righteous resistance. "Maybe this war will take a long time," he was quoted as saying. "Maybe this is a World War... they (Jihadists) want to transform Iraq into what Afghanistan was in the 1980s: a training ground for young jihadists who will form the next wave of recruits for al-Qaeda and like-minded groups." [3]

Since the linked article is only available by subscription, which I do not have, the context and relevance of this paragraph are not apparent. Can anyone explain it? Who is saying "the war. . .is one of liberation" and "offer[ing] endless, righteous resistance"? And what does this have to do with the subject of this article? None of this is clear. —No-One  Jones  ^(m) 23:23, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)'

It's disputed that Hamas and especially Hizbullah (a political party in Lebanon that won seats in parliament) are terrorist groups. Most Arab countries consider them "freedom fighters." They are terrorist according to whom? Israel and the US? Israel is a terrorist state according to Iran. Should we insert the word "terrorist" after "Israel" every time because Iranian government says so? OneGuy 10:36, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

We have a policy on making things as simple as possible for users. For example, in Wikipedia:Spoiler warning, it is said that "An additional common means of hiding spoilers from readers on a website is the practice of changing the color of the text to match that of the background of the webpage. This will render the text unreadable until it is highlighted by the reader by selecting it with the mouse. This is also called hidden text. This practice is unacceptable here, because it requires explanation to readers unfamiliar with the practice, and because it may be incompatible with computer accessibility devices such as screen readers (besides being an ugly hack)." To me, this seems like a similar unacceptable practice. And I really don't buy the "keep people from accidentally clicking" line. We have links to Last Measure and other shock sites. This is nowhere near as annoying; it's a simple video file that one could right click and save, but with the links gone you have to use some sort of download manager or paste the link into the address bar, causing it to play in many browser setups. -- SPUI 20:14, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I see no one's answered; I'm going to make them clickable now. -- SPUI 07:45, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

An anon is insisting on a link to War profiteer on this article. Since he was no more than a lowly worker, this claim is spurious. Removing the link. - Tεx τ urε 15:00, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

What's the objective limit in dollars before you can call it profiteering? The article already makes it perfectly clear that he went there to reap the fruits of the occupation. Also, I don't appreciate that you removed the link without any discussion or without even mentioning it in the edit summary. The condescending message you left on my talk page doesn't make your case any stronger. 80.203.115.12 17:41, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

A war profiteer is any person or organization that makes profits (rightly or wrongly) from warfare or by selling weapons and other goods to one or even both of the parties at war in their own or in foreign countries.

According to this definition (taken from War profiteer), Someone who is looking for communications work to rebuild a country after a war is not considered a war profiteer. Please also look to the article itself regarding Mr. Berg's work in Iraq: He traveled to Iraq in the hope of helping to repair its damaged infrastructure. - Tεx τ urε 18:14, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I will never forget the fear on Nick berg's face. I will never forget the horrible way he died. Never will I understand it. Never will I ever forgive it. 71.28.243.28 01:17, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't think this statement about Hamas and Hezbollah is NPOV:

The sincerity of these statements is questionable: both Hamas and Hezbollah stage terrorist attacks targeting Israeli citizens, including children.

While I can certainly see why that could be regarded as insincerity, that depends on the two acts being morally equivalent, and that is still debatable. Attacks on people in Iraq and Israel are different for a number of reasons; one of these is that the "occupying force" in Iraq has not promised to be there indefinitely, while that in Israel obviously has (otherwise the state of Israel would not exist).

I suggest that the statement be reworded to ascribe this position to a person or group. Would anybody care to volunteer? -- Saforrest 20:16, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

When I saw this I was disgusted. Truly these Terroists must be captured. I may sound weird but just capture them and put them in prizon for life. A disgrace to this world. Curse those Terroists.

Berg's email address had been used by Moussaoui prior to the September 11, 2001 attacks. According to Berg's father, Nick Berg had had a chance encounter with an acquaintance of Moussaoui on a bus in Norman, Oklahoma. This person had asked to borrow Berg's laptop computer to send an email. Berg gave the details of his own email account and password, which were later used by Moussaoui.

I'm curious about this. The infrastructure to send email from a bus simply didn't exist back then (no wi-fi, etc). So why would Berg lend out the laptop thinking that someone could email from a bus? Is the dad just not understanding technology? Something else going on?

-- 71.36.52.230 15:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

We need a category called "Modern Victims of Islamic Decapitation" Scented Guano 07:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

There might be too many to fit on a page. It's a sad fact. However I agree that there should be an article about it or atleast attached to islamic extremism articles. (Anonymous User) 22 June 2006

I think the Nick Berg conspiracy theories page got deleted without due process. It was voted keep here... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Nick_Berg_conspiracy_theories. Has something happened since then? Was it merged? Where did this article go? - ShadowyCabal 10:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

That was only the first AFD discussion. -- Strothra 04:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

How do I get to the last one? - ShadowyCabal 06:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I've seen this touched on a few times, and it doesn't seem like it has been changed at all....

This article is extremely one-sided about the video evidence of his death, and other theories as to the videos validity should at least be mentioned and/or linked quickly within the article.

I have removed the direct link to the alleged "real" video.-- Jimbo Wales 14:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I've requested expansion on your reasons for deleting this link on the mailing list but I figured I should do so here too. "The Memory Hole" is apparently the winner of the Project on Government Oversight's "Beyond the Headlines" Award 2005, so unless there's a specific reason why you think it's unreliable in this case I don't see the problem. Bryan 23:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

c